A commemorative set i can get behind...

That's what I was saying, they can do it if they get approval.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Don't forget they are also considering producing the three coins in Platinum as well, which is equally ridiculous. I suppose they don't want to produce them in silver because then those collecting the Mercury Dimes, Standing Liberty Quarters and Walking Liberty halves will see them as an "empty hole to be filled" in their current collections. By making them gold they are clearly not a continuation of current sets but something totally different which they can put with their current sets if so inclined, or leave them separate. Of course all of this is just IMHO.

 

I think platinum may be a better choice, as they'd "almost" look like silver then. No matter the metal composition, I'd buy the set immediately as those are stunning designs and $20-30 for a fancy box is still ok imo

 

I thought these were suggested to have the original composition and weight with the content as edge lettering. It was undetermined if they were going to do just business strikes or proofs or both. Personally I would love a proof SLQ in my collection even if it is a modern mint made knockoff. I guess congress found a way to fleece a few more buck from collectors, but if they go with this design and in gold, it won't be from this collector.

 

Now platinum, that's a great idea. I could be in for that.

 

Debbie Downer.........

 

Odd, I haven't noticed the PUBLIC clamoring for OLD designs that they have never seen before. Collectors yes (And they HAVE seen them), but the general public no.

 

Love all three designs in gold and looking forward to purchasing all three. Would love to see a silver option as well.

 

That's why the general public likes the old design, because they've never seen it before. They're getting these images from the internet, news, etc and they like them. We know they're just recycled designs but most of the people don't know that.

 

I hope they don't end up putting the weight and composition on the design. On the edge, I could live with, but I want to see the classic design without extra stuff.

 

It's the 100 year anniversary. Why not do something special like this? I think it's cool and makes the set more desirable to me. Itll be unique. They may never produce another set like it. I'm actually excited for the release date. I have nice examples of all 3 types but I don't collect sets of any of them. Just appreciate the designs.

 

The post you quoted was actually from @onecenter. Not sure why my name showed up in the attribution...?

 

Tell us how you really feel!

 

I am SICK and TIRED of dead presidents on all of our modern coins and currency! I don't blame the number of "poor artists" that provide designs as much as I blame congress, the Secretary of the Treasury, the mint and especially the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC). This idea that our currency must look like crap so it won't be counterfeited is utter NONSENSE!!! There are counterfeited now. I, for one, wish we would return to allegorical designs of Liberty on our coinage and scenes from American history on our currency. I would like to see our coin and currency designs change every 25 years to totally new designs obverse and reverse with no delays permitted.

 

I'm not sure why you blame Congress, they can only vote on bills that have been proposed. Yes they have mandated certain designs but usually only in general terms not specifics and most of those have been commemoratives. The Sec Treas is probably a more valid complaint because he has had the option to change desions on his authority and didn't do so. The Mint doesn't have the authority to change designs so complaining about them probably ins't valid. Complaining about the CCAC isn't valid either because they can't propose designs, only vote on designs submitted to them and make suggestions for improvements of those designs. Sure sometimes they chose bad designs but they usually don't have much to chose from. And even if they do chose a bad one the Sec Treas can over rule them.

If the designs are bad blame the people who made the designs.

And I have no idea where you get the idea people think designs have look bad so they won't be counterfeited.

 

Sorry but I disagree. Congress determines the coinage to be minted, the type of/ purity of the metal to be used, and surely you saw in the news where congress even voted a couple of years ago on a bill presented by the Virginia delegation to retain Jefferson's Immage on the Nickel forever. The CCAC has gone on record numerous times rejecting coin designs during the state quarter submissions stating the designs were not feasible for minting; and this is not the only times the CCAC butted in. The US Mint only produces what they are told to but they do produce all the dies for our coinage ... with some very liberal changes to designs (such as the Missouri State Quarter design) plus they made their own exception to Congress' direction to the US Mint in deciding it would only produce fractional American Gold Buffalo coins in 2008 when congress intended these to made annually definately. The Secty of the Treas is a figurehead and a lackey of whoever is president at the time, but acts like he does all the work, just as every other department head in government has done since the late 19th century.

 

Odd sounds like you agree completely.

I said Congress usually specifies designs in general terms, you mention the requirement the Jefferson has to appear on the nickel, but they don't saw what the portrait has to look like. (and there have been three different portraits of him in the past eleven years. This isn't a disagreement.

I said the CACC only votes on what they are given and suggests changes, they don't propose designs. You mention they have rejected all the designs sometimes. Sounds like they voted no on all of them. Again we are in agreement.

I said the mint dies not have the authority to change designs. That would be approved designs. You mention the state quarters, specifically the Missouri quarter. Most if not all of the winning state design submissions were modified by the "poor artists", read as engraving staff, before they were given final approval. So the blame for poor design goes to the artists not the mint executives. As for the fractional buffalos and their one year only use, that has nothing to do with the design, unless you are of the opinion that the buffalo design is "crappy".

On the matter of the Sec Treas, I said that could be a valid complaint because he had failed to exercise his authority. You say he is a figurehead and lackey whu acts like he does everything but actually does nothing. Sounds like we are in agreement here as well.

 

I hope the packaging is similar to the March of Dimes set. I thought the box was appropriately sized for the set and storage purposes.

 

They announced on 11/10 that this set is officially a go. No word on mintage limits yet. Appears they will keep original diameters, they will be roughly half as thick as the originals since pure 24k gold is much denser and heavier, and business strikes only.

 

Personally I think that if the Mint wants to observe the 100th anniversary, these coins should be struck in silver. Nothing wrong with gold, but, after all, they were historic silver coins. A limited gold option along with that would open up the series to more buyers.

I certainly don't have a problem with the concept - a huge percentage of Americans have never laid eyes on these designs.